talkmagic.co.uk

It's clear to me that people involved in magic are very familiar with the concept of intellectual property ownership. It's obviiously one of the most fundamental things about magic..

So how come Penguin Magic can rename CMH as quantum bandits, and go on to sell it? I could imagine agreeing to pay the originator (michael ammar?) royalties for the privilege of selling it, but why on earth would they change the name? Seems really silly to me..

Actually, CMH is a ROUTINE based on a move by Arthur Setterington (I am sure), who sadly died during January this year.

Ammar didn't invent the move. He just uses it in his CMH routine. There's so many CMH routines, but Ammars' seems to be the 'main' one. Dan Harlan, Russ Niedzwiecki, and many more all have their own variations.

As for the Quantum Bandits 'stealing' the CMH idea... it is no more an act of intellectual property theft than using a riffle force or Erdnase colour change. They are mere tools (as is the unlinking/linking bands) with which magicians build routines.

So, you can rest once again that the Magic community is safe

Thanks for putting it into perspective for me.

Silly as it may sound, I'll bet that if the pervert who first struck upon the idea of drinking cows milk were around today, he'd be sueing dairys left right and centre for theiving his idea!

Arthur wrote:Thanks for putting it into perspective for me.

Silly as it may sound, I'll bet that if the pervert who first struck upon the idea of drinking cows milk were around today, he'd be sueing dairys left right and centre for theiving his idea!

Yes, it's an odd thing, but barely any magic could be considered as 'new' these days. Most tricks are based on sleights or principles which are just recycled and re-routined. So, is ANYTHING copyrightable? Yes—the PERFORMANCE of an effect is what counts.

For example, you could teach a lay(person - political correctness!) how to perform a DL, but if that is all you taught them, they'd never work out how it can be used. The single components are as I said, just tools. Tools used to create ROUTINES and EFFECTS.

In fact, if Karl Benz were around, he'd have a hard time suing all those other car manufacturers too.

I agree with seige, but also ....

Arthur wrote:It's clear to me that people involved in magic are very familiar with the concept of intellectual property ownership. It's obviiously one of the most fundamental things about magic..

Sorry Arthur, but you couldn't be further from the truth... Although many are aggressively protective of their creations, you will find that their position is not protected under the law.

You will hear again and again calls for why don't they sue?. The answer, more often than not, is because they can't.

However, what one does notice is that most magicians will quote the source or credit the creator of an idea. As has been stated on these forums elsewhere, one cannot copyright an idea, so it's to their credit that they at least refer to the originators.

At least that's what people like Sankey do ...